The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Recently the English cricket team faced fierce controversy from both the ICC and the English people concerning their one-day international tour of Zimbabwe. It was of strong belief that the team should refuse to play in protest of the country’s extreme dictator, Robert Mugabe.
Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with open discrimination to white people, torturing and killing them as well as forcing them to leave the country. He has done the same with those who oppose him and redistributes their land among his supporters, which then becomes unused and wasted. As such, in his period of power, he has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and ruled not for the people, but himself – what wealth there is being distributed among him and his henchmen.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public questioned whether or not the team should have gone at all. How is it that England can play cricket while innocent people are being tortured in the same country? Especially considering that each match they play will grant money to the tyrant Mugabe. It would not just be overlooking the terrible acts being carried out in Zimbabwe, it would be practically condoning it.
The British government have not made matters any better, presenting no solution to the problem and assuming a submissive laissez-faire stance, relying on the players to decide whether or not they should go. Is it fair to put this amount of responsibility on our national team? The English side want to play cricket, not be burderned with the pressures of complicated political debate.
To make matters worse, the ICC (within whom England as a nation is woefully under-represented) stated that if the English team fail to honour their commitments and play in Zimbabwe, they will face penalties and fines in the region of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it was most likely this and not the moralistic obligations of a team heralding from a country that promotes peace and freedom as human rights that made up the minds of the majority of the players.
Should England have gone? No. We cannot overlook and certainly cannot appear to publically condone such violations of human rights in England itself or the rest of the world. Can the team be forgiven? Definitely. The position they were put in was as unfair as it was unnecessary – there should not have been such irrational pressures from the ICC and the government should have taken control. The problem now is whatever immediate and long term repercussions this visit will have. What, for example, would happen if the team were forced to meet Robert Mugabe? Can we be sure of their safety? Unfortunately it has come to the point where only time will tell.
Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with open discrimination to white people, torturing and killing them as well as forcing them to leave the country. He has done the same with those who oppose him and redistributes their land among his supporters, which then becomes unused and wasted. As such, in his period of power, he has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and ruled not for the people, but himself – what wealth there is being distributed among him and his henchmen.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public questioned whether or not the team should have gone at all. How is it that England can play cricket while innocent people are being tortured in the same country? Especially considering that each match they play will grant money to the tyrant Mugabe. It would not just be overlooking the terrible acts being carried out in Zimbabwe, it would be practically condoning it.
The British government have not made matters any better, presenting no solution to the problem and assuming a submissive laissez-faire stance, relying on the players to decide whether or not they should go. Is it fair to put this amount of responsibility on our national team? The English side want to play cricket, not be burderned with the pressures of complicated political debate.
To make matters worse, the ICC (within whom England as a nation is woefully under-represented) stated that if the English team fail to honour their commitments and play in Zimbabwe, they will face penalties and fines in the region of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it was most likely this and not the moralistic obligations of a team heralding from a country that promotes peace and freedom as human rights that made up the minds of the majority of the players.
Should England have gone? No. We cannot overlook and certainly cannot appear to publically condone such violations of human rights in England itself or the rest of the world. Can the team be forgiven? Definitely. The position they were put in was as unfair as it was unnecessary – there should not have been such irrational pressures from the ICC and the government should have taken control. The problem now is whatever immediate and long term repercussions this visit will have. What, for example, would happen if the team were forced to meet Robert Mugabe? Can we be sure of their safety? Unfortunately it has come to the point where only time will tell.
Page:
Recently the English cricket team faced fierce controversy from both the ICC and the English people concerning their one-day international tour of Zimbabwe. It was of strong belief that the team should refuse to play in protest of the country’s extreme dictator, Robert Mugabe.
Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with open discrimination to white people, torturing and killing them as well as forcing them to leave the country. He has done the same with those who oppose him and redistributes their land among his supporters, which then becomes unused and wasted. As such, in his period of power, he has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and ruled not for the people, but himself – what wealth there is being distributed among him and his henchmen.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public questioned whether or not the team should have gone at all. How is it that England can play cricket while innocent people are being tortured in the same country? Especially considering that each match they play will grant money to the tyrant Mugabe. It would not just be overlooking the terrible acts being carried out in Zimbabwe, it would be practically condoning it.
The British government have not made matters any better, presenting no solution to the problem and assuming a submissive laissez-faire stance, relying on the players to decide whether or not they should go. Is it fair to put this amount of responsibility on our national team? The English side want to play cricket, not be burderned with the pressures of complicated political debate.
To make matters worse, the ICC (within whom England as a nation is woefully under-represented) stated that if the English team fail to honour their commitments and play in Zimbabwe, they will face penalties and fines in the region of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it was most likely this and not the moralistic obligations of a team heralding from a country that promotes peace and freedom as human rights that made up the minds of the majority of the players.
Should England have gone? No. We cannot overlook and certainly cannot appear to publically condone such violations of human rights in England itself or the rest of the world. Can the team be forgiven? Definitely. The position they were put in was as unfair as it was unnecessary – there should not have been such irrational pressures from the ICC and the government should have taken control. The problem now is whatever immediate and long term repercussions this visit will have. What, for example, would happen if the team were forced to meet Robert Mugabe? Can we be sure of their safety? Unfortunately it has come to the point where only time will tell.
Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with open discrimination to white people, torturing and killing them as well as forcing them to leave the country. He has done the same with those who oppose him and redistributes their land among his supporters, which then becomes unused and wasted. As such, in his period of power, he has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and ruled not for the people, but himself – what wealth there is being distributed among him and his henchmen.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public questioned whether or not the team should have gone at all. How is it that England can play cricket while innocent people are being tortured in the same country? Especially considering that each match they play will grant money to the tyrant Mugabe. It would not just be overlooking the terrible acts being carried out in Zimbabwe, it would be practically condoning it.
The British government have not made matters any better, presenting no solution to the problem and assuming a submissive laissez-faire stance, relying on the players to decide whether or not they should go. Is it fair to put this amount of responsibility on our national team? The English side want to play cricket, not be burderned with the pressures of complicated political debate.
To make matters worse, the ICC (within whom England as a nation is woefully under-represented) stated that if the English team fail to honour their commitments and play in Zimbabwe, they will face penalties and fines in the region of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it was most likely this and not the moralistic obligations of a team heralding from a country that promotes peace and freedom as human rights that made up the minds of the majority of the players.
Should England have gone? No. We cannot overlook and certainly cannot appear to publically condone such violations of human rights in England itself or the rest of the world. Can the team be forgiven? Definitely. The position they were put in was as unfair as it was unnecessary – there should not have been such irrational pressures from the ICC and the government should have taken control. The problem now is whatever immediate and long term repercussions this visit will have. What, for example, would happen if the team were forced to meet Robert Mugabe? Can we be sure of their safety? Unfortunately it has come to the point where only time will tell.
I think they should they are just going to play cricket not support or say yeah your right in what you to. i don't think cricket or any sport is a big deal in the grand sceam of things and doesn't mean anything really.
didnt this happen last year?
It's good, they can bore Mugabe to death with a game of cricket
Almost as boring as this topic.
I saw some debate about the whole Zimbabwe and cricket thing quite a while ago on Question Time I think... And I was just left completely at a loss...
There's all these people going on saying that the Government or cricket association (or whatever it's called... The FA of cricket I guess...) should step in and recommend a course of action for the players... Why? Simply, why do they need to step in. It's simple. If a cricket player would rather not go play cricket in a country, they needn't. They just tell the captain / manager / whoever thay won't play there. If a majority of players don't want to go, they don't go.
It's as if people think because they play cricket they can't think for themselves. "Oooh, they're too busy concentrating on cricket to worry about politics...". What? Seriously, if they can't make their mind up about a simple thing like this it seems to me they shouldn't be off 'representing' England... And it is a simple issue. They should be well aware of the situation in Zimbabwe given that they were supposed to be playing there, so it's simply a decision of whether they feel it's only a game of cricket, not a show of political support, or they feel that they don't want to have anything to do with the regime there.
I'm not saying what was 'right' or 'wrong' to do (although I know which option I'd have gone for), I'm just saying government shouldn't be guiding sports teams through these decisions like children. They should (I hope) be fully capable of making decisions like this individually, and if they can't it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
There's all these people going on saying that the Government or cricket association (or whatever it's called... The FA of cricket I guess...) should step in and recommend a course of action for the players... Why? Simply, why do they need to step in. It's simple. If a cricket player would rather not go play cricket in a country, they needn't. They just tell the captain / manager / whoever thay won't play there. If a majority of players don't want to go, they don't go.
It's as if people think because they play cricket they can't think for themselves. "Oooh, they're too busy concentrating on cricket to worry about politics...". What? Seriously, if they can't make their mind up about a simple thing like this it seems to me they shouldn't be off 'representing' England... And it is a simple issue. They should be well aware of the situation in Zimbabwe given that they were supposed to be playing there, so it's simply a decision of whether they feel it's only a game of cricket, not a show of political support, or they feel that they don't want to have anything to do with the regime there.
I'm not saying what was 'right' or 'wrong' to do (although I know which option I'd have gone for), I'm just saying government shouldn't be guiding sports teams through these decisions like children. They should (I hope) be fully capable of making decisions like this individually, and if they can't it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
If it was a friendly, the match would represent some kind of political and social relationship between the countries.
Then you could argue that someone (politicians) should stop the crickiters who represent the country from showing approval for Mugabe.
But it wasn\'t a friendly, the team was playing there as part of a fixture they had to play, or be penalised by the cricket.. people.
Therefore no approval of the government implied, no \'misrepresentation\' of the country, just people playing cricket because they\'re obliged to.
Then you could argue that someone (politicians) should stop the crickiters who represent the country from showing approval for Mugabe.
But it wasn\'t a friendly, the team was playing there as part of a fixture they had to play, or be penalised by the cricket.. people.
Therefore no approval of the government implied, no \'misrepresentation\' of the country, just people playing cricket because they\'re obliged to.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
or be penalised by the cricket.. people.
>
It's the ICC!!!! OMG, have you no respect?!?
or be penalised by the cricket.. people.
>
It's the ICC!!!! OMG, have you no respect?!?
As much as I dissaprove in Mugabe's torture campain if you go back a few hundred years or so it would proberbly have been the other way round whites killing and torturing the blacks. two wrongs don't make a right and so on but it's like what comes around goes around. We were doing it to them all thoose years ago and it's only now there paying for it, a lesson for us all, history never forgets no matter how long it is when deaths are involved.
I probably should point out that what I wrote didn't necessarily reflect my views. I had to write an article on a certain issue arguing a strong viewpoint for my General Studies course, so I went for this. The writing isn't so great as it was a bit of a rushed job, but I thought it might be of some interest.
Personally, I do think it's fair comment to argue that the team shouldn't have gone, as in fact Steve Harmison himself decided. You could argue that "it's just a game of cricket", but there's a certain amount of responsibility that should be taken concerning international affairs, be it political or otherwise. For the team to play in a country ruled by such a ruthless tyrant, with widespread injustice and breaches of human rights, and not bat an eyelid isn't right.
Personally, I do think it's fair comment to argue that the team shouldn't have gone, as in fact Steve Harmison himself decided. You could argue that "it's just a game of cricket", but there's a certain amount of responsibility that should be taken concerning international affairs, be it political or otherwise. For the team to play in a country ruled by such a ruthless tyrant, with widespread injustice and breaches of human rights, and not bat an eyelid isn't right.
Page: